Skype offers partial API reprieve to call recorders and hardware apps

The API is still going away, but these core tasks will be kept alive.

If you've started up the Skype desktop application recently, you may have been greeted with a message telling you that any third-party applications you use, including call recorders, hardware add-ons, and non-Skype chat clients, will stop working come this December. While non-Skype chat clients are still set to be disabled, the company announced today that call recorders and hardware add-ons will continue to work for the indefinite future.

This decision has been greeted with dismay both by users of such applications and by their developers. Call recorders in particular serve an important role. Skype has no recording faculties of its own, but when used in conjunction with recorders, it has found itself a core part of the podcaster's toolset, as it's a great tool for recording interviews. Journalists, too, routinely use Skype for recording phone calls.

These functions were jeopardized by Skype's decision to deprecate and remove the extension API that its desktop client includes. Skype's rationale for this decision was that the API design wasn't appropriate to the way Skype is used today. The company has made infrastructural changes to better support low-power, occasionally connected mobile clients, including a move away from peer-to-peer design and greater messaging abilities to accommodate offline clients. It claimed that the desktop API was another casualty of this move toward a more mobile world.

These applications have been given a partial reprieve. Skype says that these parts of its API will remain enabled for a while longer. How much longer is still to be determined: the company says that it will keep it around until it determines "alternative options" for call recording... or decides to just retire the current API anyway.

I use Ecamm call recorder for Skype pretty heavily, and the Ecamm guys say it won't be affected. I asked, and their support responded by saying that they don't actually lean on the API for recording calls. Which seems odd...but I suppose we'll find out soon enough!

I think MS is trying to destroy itself. like someone inside is literally trolling the company. Now it is just funny. I'm trying to think about who MS could alienate next. i can't, anything crazy i can think of has already been done.

Wait. Next office can only be installed from Windows Store and only works with W8.1 or later and only works in metro.

I use Ecamm call recorder for Skype pretty heavily, and the Ecamm guys say it won't be affected. I asked, and their support responded by saying that they don't actually lean on the API for recording calls. Which seems odd...but I suppose we'll find out soon enough!

They probably tap the audio as it heads towards the speakers/from the microphone, which is the more reliable way to do it.

Most serious podcast studios use hardware as far as I know? So they'd obviously be safe as well. The analogue hole will always keep working.

As a developer I don't see why microsoft should be required to maintain an API that nobody uses. It would place significant pressure on their engineering team to keep it working as they modify the app, and most users do not use it - so it's a big negative for almost no gain.

Seriously? This will be the first thing that Microsoft hasn't made better with Skype.

Skype is in fact probably the only aquisition Microsoft has made where the end product has improved.

That said, I don't think there would be a problem rolling out a newer API and weaning people off the old one, but why on earth simply end the existing API with very little notice and no details on the next step for developers and customers?

Personally I'm happy with this, as long as Microsoft writes a proper call recorder into Skype themselves.I don't like using 3rd-party addons, especially for applications like Skype (the more of these you install, the more chances of being pwned), and especially from badly curated or non-curated "app" marketplaces. I'd be happier with a call recorder built in to Skype by the same people who wrote Skype, and for the API to be closed down so as to avoid it being put to use directly by malware.

Skype is in fact probably the only aquisition Microsoft has made where the end product has improved.

Please elaborate. I've been a Skype paying customer for 10 years, and I don't see it.

Memory consumption has significantly improved. It doesn't crash as much, either. There's support for newer, better CODECs. Overall, it's a more mature project. There are fewer headline features, but it works.

It's got more hooks in there for government interception, too, but I doubt many end-users would consider that a feature. It's perhaps telling that they don't offer a version history on the update dialog anymore.

Much of their recent work appears to have gone into Android and Windows Phone client development, and to be honest I suspect they needed it more than the desktop client. There's also integration with and absorption of the MSN network to consider. And, of course, further internationalization.

Skype is in fact probably the only aquisition Microsoft has made where the end product has improved.

Please elaborate. I've been a Skype paying customer for 10 years, and I don't see it.

Memory consumption has significantly improved. It doesn't crash as much, either. There's support for newer, better CODECs. Overall, it's a more mature project. There are fewer headline features, but it works.

File transfers, while slower (and by virtue of NSA intervention less secure), are significantly more reliable since the move to centralized servers (as opposed to the P2P-like structure from before the acquisition). However, I am still missing the compact contact list and the ability to have two or more chats visible at the same time.

Seriously? This will be the first thing that Microsoft hasn't made better with Skype.

Skype is in fact probably the only aquisition Microsoft has made where the end product has improved.

That said, I don't think there would be a problem rolling out a newer API and weaning people off the old one, but why on earth simply end the existing API with very little notice and no details on the next step for developers and customers?

Yep they made it easier for the NSA to listen in on your calls. Any text you type in during a video call is scanned and used for advertising and sent to the NSA, they also got rid of the super nodes that the system used for years.

I use Ecamm call recorder for Skype pretty heavily, and the Ecamm guys say it won't be affected. I asked, and their support responded by saying that they don't actually lean on the API for recording calls. Which seems odd...but I suppose we'll find out soon enough!

They probably tap the audio as it heads towards the speakers/from the microphone, which is the more reliable way to do it.

Most serious podcast studios use hardware as far as I know? So they'd obviously be safe as well. The analogue hole will always keep working.

As a developer I don't see why microsoft should be required to maintain an API that nobody uses. It would place significant pressure on their engineering team to keep it working as they modify the app, and most users do not use it - so it's a big negative for almost no gain.

Most users don't use it except for the ones that do. Our company uses Skype extensively for communications and we have written bots that use the Skype API to keep people informed of builds, tickets, etc. This is going to screw us.

Virtual Audio Cable is a good way to record pretty much anything. It's reasonably cheap, and works well. You set your output device to a virtual cable, set your recording software to input from the virtual cable, and set it to play to the speakers.

Virtual Audio Cable is a good way to record pretty much anything. It's reasonably cheap, and works well. You set your output device to a virtual cable, set your recording software to input from the virtual cable, and set it to play to the speakers.

On Ubuntu, all audio output devices have a corresponding "monitor" input that you can record from. Does Windows require a third-party application to do this? It seems like it should be basic functionality.

Of course, if you want to record the video from a Skype video call without an API, you would probably need to get some kind of screen recording software too.

Skype is in fact probably the only aquisition Microsoft has made where the end product has improved.

Please elaborate. I've been a Skype paying customer for 10 years, and I don't see it.

For example, they ported it to smartphones and on iOS - the only place I've used it - the Skype app is just as good if not better than the built in "real" phone call app.

I suspect it's no coincidence Apple's API for third party VOIP products is so good. Somebody, almost certainly Microsoft, would have had to convince Apple to make that happen. I seriously doubt Skype would have had the negotiating power to achieve that.

Also, Skype went from 12% marketshare to 35% marketshare (for international phone calls) while owned by Microsoft. Clearly they're doing something right... having more people you can call via Skype is a good thing right?

Too bad nobody I know has reliable 3G service, so I never use it, but Skype mobile is definitely an improvement over having to use a computer.

Skype is in fact probably the only aquisition Microsoft has made where the end product has improved.

Please elaborate. I've been a Skype paying customer for 10 years, and I don't see it.

For example, they ported it to smartphones and on iOS - the only place I've used it - the Skype app is just as good if not better than the built in "real" phone call app.

I suspect it's no coincidence Apple's API for third party VOIP products is so good. Somebody, almost certainly Microsoft, would have had to convince Apple to make that happen. I seriously doubt Skype would have had the negotiating power to achieve that.

Also, Skype went from 12% marketshare to 35% marketshare (for international phone calls) while owned by Microsoft. Clearly they're doing something right... having more people you can call via Skype is a good thing right?

Too bad nobody I know has reliable 3G service, so I never use it, but Skype mobile is definitely an improvement over having to use a computer.

Skype had excellent integration in Nokia's Maemo phones long before MS bought Skype (or Nokia), and I've used it as my primary voice service for years (since 2007), with the unlimited calls to/from standard phone numbers service (about $60/year, last I checked). It wasn't even a separate app on the N900, it was pre-installed and integrated with the dialer and contacts list

There were also WiFi based Skype phones, and cordless Skype handsets with wired Ethernet base stations since before the Apple iPhone existed. In fact Linksys made one called an "iPhone" and sued Apple over the name when Apple used it without permission (I actually own, and still use, a Linksys iPhone as my home phone, but have never owned an Apple iPhone). I think they eventually settled, and Apple probably gave Linksys a pile of cash for permission to use the name. A computer hasn't been necessary for Skype for a long time.

I don't know if MS's negotiating power was necessary for getting Apple integration or not, but aside from possible stubbornness on Apple's part (I never paid attention to that, so I'm ignorant on that matter), Skype has supported mobile devices and other "non-PC" portable gadgets since long before MS acquired them.

Virtual Audio Cable is a good way to record pretty much anything. It's reasonably cheap, and works well. You set your output device to a virtual cable, set your recording software to input from the virtual cable, and set it to play to the speakers.

On Ubuntu, all audio output devices have a corresponding "monitor" input that you can record from. Does Windows require a third-party application to do this? It seems like it should be basic functionality.

Of course, if you want to record the video from a Skype video call without an API, you would probably need to get some kind of screen recording software too.

You can generally record the output. It's just not normally what you want. You don't want system sounds, for example. The Skype recording software I use can create stereo files with my track on one channel, everyone else's on the other. It's quite handy, and not something that you get from just recording the mixed output.

I don't understand the actual reasons for this, except to force everyone into using their own client. And I don't understand why they'd want to force anyone to use their own client except if they plan to display advertisement in it.

I use Trillian because it's multi-protocol, it's lightweight and it meets my need perfectly. I will not give up Trillian just so I can use Skype. Microsoft will lose one customer, no big deal. I'm sure there will be more people than just me, but not enough to make a dent in their revenue I guess.

I'm getting really fed up with all these big companies trying to coerce me into using their products. I want interoperability. If their product is better, I'll use it. If not, I'll use another product, but still use their service. I thought that's what capitalism was about. But nowadays it seems that capitalism is about huge, monolithic companies trying to get as much people on their side of the fence while making it very hard to cross over.

Has anyone noticed a severe drop in call quality when using skype-out to call landlines from a skype client? Used to be people would say I sound clearer than usual (meaning clearer than when i'm calling from my actual phone). Now I'm barely intelligible. It's been a problem for the last 4+ months from any skype device in my house (android phone, win 7 desktop and laptop, and a mac). The hardware hasn't changed.

I'm on Uverse, and while it's possible that AT&T has purposefully or not done something to degrade skype call quality, I don't think that's it. I should test from another connection just to verify though.

I don't understand the actual reasons for this, except to force everyone into using their own client. And I don't understand why they'd want to force anyone to use their own client except if they plan to display advertisement in it.

Ads seem like a pretty reasonable guess.

From a developer's point of view, I could offer an alternate hypothesis. In my experience, Skype has been pretty buggy for years and years -- their mobile phone apps have been particularly crashy, but even their desktop software has given me plenty of problems over the years.

You don't generally have that level of instability in a major software vendor's products unless they're doing something really difficult coding-wise (e.g. games) ... or they've just got some seriously ugly code under the hood. Skype isn't doing anything that difficult. If it were a small company, it may just be a lack of QA resources, but bigger companies like Skype can usually compensate for a shitty code-base with massive amounts of testing. The fact that they haven't managed to deal with their problems, suggest to me that they run pretty deep.

I imagine that since MS bought Skype, they've been gutting the innards and rewriting. Especially when you're dealing with somebody else's code, it's not uncommon to just want to throw all the past bad design decisions out -- possibly rebuilding the product entirely. The API stuff may be dropped because the MS developers/managers just want to tear out that whole piece of the code-base entirely and clear the way for rewriting everything it interacts with.

Maybe a new API will come out later, one that's aligned with new code under the hood. Maybe not.